2 Aug
2009
2 Aug
'09
6:22 p.m.
Forest Bond wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 10:18:20AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
This is false. The GPL doesn't change the meaning of copyright, and it is
worthless without one or more copyright holders (somebody has to have the
copyright in order to apply the license). Authors retain copyright to their
software when they release it under the GPL. The GPL simply grants rights to
others that they otherwise wouldn't have (at least under US law).
-Forest
Thanx, I guess I understand and I guess I mean it that way. I got
off-list a mail on German. We have a
copyright and *related rights* ;). "Urheberrecht" vs
"Vervielfältigungsrecht".
Even if
you changed headers original done by other authors for more
than 50% of the code, it must be noticeable who was the original author
and that you changed it. There's a stipulation: "a) You must cause the
modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the
files and the date of any change."
I guess this should protect the reliability of the software. If thousand
people change xyz.h, we need to know if we got the original xyz.h, with
the original functionality or if we got a derivate, that might has lost
it's compatibility. Copyrights done under the GPL should protect the
software and users, less the authors, that's why it's called a copyleft.
You only can make the software name, logos etc. copyright, not the code,
if you are using GPL code.